James Fox reports test results of water from Grand Isle

Here in Canada, I know of no one who feels smug or superior because of disaster happening to people far away. Most Canadians are 'small people' who
only seem to be noticed at tax time. But to follow this event in the Gulf, which very well have an impact on Canadian lives, we have to search deeply
into the internet. Other than not wanting folk to know what is going on, why the attempts to stop 'small people' from even the freedom to observe.
( Saw an item on ICNN where state officials turned citizens away when attempting to approach Waveland beach).
Our federal government stated yesterday that the Gulf "spill" would not stop Canada from drilling offshore. We would simply choose the company with
the best safety record. It was not mentioned if BP is on the short list.

I did read your post and for the most part, I agree with your post. With that being said, it just reinforces my point that the person testing these
samples was most likely under-qualified to do so. For one, he shouldn't say that "x" chemical is much higher then "Y" chemical, when he only
tested for "Y" chemical and he may not even be qualified to to run that test. If he is under-qualified to perform such a test, then there are a
thousands things that could have manipulated the results.

My point? They are passing this off as if it was a professional study when it sure doesn't seem to be the case. It seems as if this guy has an
agenda, irregardless of whether the agenda is good or not. Is it to alarm or scare people? Maybe there is a good reason to alarm or scare people but I
want raw data, as to come to my own conclusion. "Sea otters swimming through the oil" is case in point. That made a big impression during the Exxon
Valdez fiasco and it seems to be a play on emotions here, as there aren't any sea otters in the Gulf of Mexico.

When you have such alarming accusations or claims, you should make sure that your ducks are in a row, because it is going to come under scrutiny. If
this was a student, why not disclose that? If it was an amateur study as opposed to a professional study, why not disclose it as such? Instead, it
appears that they tested at least one sample for one compound, yet they make much grander claims.

I have no doubt that the water in that region is poisoned, obviously, but I want to go on accurate data, not my or anyone else's emotions.
apparently, the "scientist" on the phone in the video only tested for one chemical, yet he makes claims that are beyond the scope of his study and
he does it anonymously. It would seem they are leading people on here instead of letting the facts speak for themselves.

Airspoon I will have to agree. I think James Fox is attempting to do the right thing but the results of the test must be 100% accurate in its
findings.......

We (project toxic rain reality check) are head deep in seeking out a lab that can perform the test required that will identify corexit as the toxic
chemical used that contaminated the water..........Unfortunately James's video only raises more questions that accurate testing is needed.....Here is
Paxnatus's last updated post:

As Clouds has said, many labs across the country can perform a simple water test. They can even tell you if the rainwater is toxic. A general water
test is not too expensive under $100.00. However this test will not break down the compounds of the toxic elements in the water. So yes, you will
have abnormal findings, but there will be no way to determine the source of those findings.

So far I have found only one lab in the nation that can not only test for dispersant's but for the chemical compound DOSS or Dioctyl Sulfosuccinate
Sodium Salt, the chemical property left from the use of Corexit.

If DOSS is present, then there is no question Corexit is in the rainwater, thus allowing the lab to identify where the source came from.

Analytical testing for these compounds requires the use of sophisticated instrumentation. Due to their chemical nature, many of these compounds are
not amenable to standard environmental gas chromatographic (GC) techniques.

The method used will be Liquid Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy/Mass Spectroscopy (LC/MS/MS).

There must be parameters in place before the testing. So if we were to test for Benzine or Oil based chemical properties, there is not only a
different test method but a different test that would need to be ordered thus driving the cost per sample up.

Because the test is very expensive I am in the process of finding funding to back this project. Please know that money will not deter us from getting
to the truth.

We have placed an order for the supplies needed to collect the samples. They are being shipped today to Clouds. We will let you know the next step to
take if you would like your sample tested.

The only thing I ask is that you continue to be patient. This is a ground breaking project and the 3 of us are working very diligently to provide the
most accurate data we possibly can.

Thank you very much for your participation in this thread, and the compliments. Remember we are just like you. Everyday Joe's and Jane(lol)
Nothing special about any of us, we just got to the point where enough was enough, and we want the truth.

So the corexit is way worse than the oil. So the spill, as some suggest, could be faked by drilling into an asphalt volcano to mimic an oil gusher and
the corexit used to temporarily contaminate the area to poison and scare away the populations. Then they drill to balance the pressure from the
volcano once population is removed and problem solved. In a year the corexit evaporates and like Katrina, government dependent poor are eliminated and
prime property becomes available for sale to rich foreigners who own the country. The population that was displaced die off soon after from the
corexit poisoning and they achieve depopulation of the poor “useless eaters” as well.

In article: asphalt volcanos discovered by research expedition in 2003 in the Gulf of Mexico on a seafloor hill the scientists named Chapopote geology.about.com...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.